• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Comparing Zeiss and Swarovski 32 /30 models (1 Viewer)

I am getting into 10x32's lately. I have always avoided them because the popular opinion is they are fussy and not that great frankly. Will let me tell you that opinion is incorrect if you are dealing with alpha's. I have the Swarovski 10x32 SV and the Nikon 10x32 EDG and they are both excellent 10x's and not fussy at all and the handling and size and weight is so much nicer than a 42mm. Trouble with the Zeiss 10x32 FL is you never see one discounted. Kind of like a Swarovski. Even though the FL was made years ago it is still a top alpha binocular and probably will be unless Zeiss makes an SF in a 32mm. The FL is still Zeiss's best 32mm binocular. I consider the FL in the top three 32mm's along with the SV and the EDG.

Dennis
I was suspicious of 10x32's until I borrowed a Meopta B1 10x32 to review and found it to be unfussy and delightful.

When you say 'even though the FL was made years ago' I guess you mean 'launched' years ago because it is still made today.

Lee
 
Lee,

Sorry for being abrupt, I love the FL 8X32 and still use all the other FL models except the 7X42, and the 10X32. My enthusiasm lacks for that configuration of 10X32. Give me at least a 10X42.

Andy W.
 
Andy

I don't mean to brow beat you into liking a 10x32 just because I do because I understand a lot of liking different binoculars is just personal preference. BUT I really like to hear different opinions on why people choose what they do especially when they have had a lot of binoculars like you have. I am curious what 10x32's you have used and why you didn't care for them compared to their 10x42 equivalent? I am guessing it is the bigger exit pupil making eye placement easier and the brighter image under low light. Any other reasons? Is it overcast in Delaware quite often which makes the 42mm a better choice? I am sure that the amount of light you get in your location affects your binocular choice. Finally, what is your age if that is not to personal? Age can really affect how much benefit you get from the bigger 42mm aperture and also your willingness to carry a heavier binocular. Again, I am NOT trying to convince you to like 32mm binoculars. I just like to get some insight on why people choose what they do especially when itis somebody with a lot of viewing experience like you. Thanks!
 
Lee,

Sorry for being abrupt, I love the FL 8X32 and still use all the other FL models except the 7X42, and the 10X32. My enthusiasm lacks for that configuration of 10X32. Give me at least a 10X42.

Andy W.

Hi Andy

Nothing to apologise for Pal. I have been skeptical about 10x32 for years until I tried Meopta's B1 10x32 and I found the format was very usable. It does, after all give an EP bigger than 8x25 which has generated (Zeiss) a good deal of love recently.

Lee
 
Dennis,

It is all about the exit pupil, and I am not young by any stretch. Delaware has quite a bit of sun, more than many part of Western Europe. I actually prefer an exit pupil of 5 - the view is more relaxing to my vision and that is why I do not use 8X32 or 10X42 much, in fact in those two configurations, I have the least amount of glass.

Most of what I use is 8X42/8X56 and 10X50/56. The only other glass I have which have less ER than than 5 are used more often looking up at the night sky, and for pure distance viewing are 12X50 and 15X56. I have no problem carrying around a 1000 gram glass, sometimes I use a harness over my shoulder, with a heavy 8 or 10X56, depending on the terrain.

Andy W.
 
Andy

It's all about comfort and the relaxing view for you. You like big aperture with it's resulting big exit pupil. I understand having had quite a few binoculars with those kind of exit pupils. No fussiness with a 5mm or bigger EP. You just bang them up to your eyes and you get a full FOV with no black out worries. If you don't care for an 8x32 you definitely won't like a 10x32 either with it's even smaller EP. That just shows you how our eyes all different. I am comfortable with a 3.2 mm EP and you dislike them. You probably don't even mess around with compacts then. A lot of these decisions on what kind of binocular to use is just personal preference based on every bodies different physical characteristics. You have to decide what is important to YOU. All three of the top alpha 32mm are good you have to just decide what characteristic is most important to you. The SV is your binocular if you want the sharpest edges and flattest field and RB doesn't bother you and you like a smaller more ergonomic binocular, the EDG is your binocular if you prefer a slightly less flat field with not quite as sharp of edges as the SV but less chance of RB with better internal reflection or flare control and better CA control than the SV and finally if you like a more traditional optical design with off-axis astigmatism and some off-axis pincushion distortion creating softer edges and no RB while panning with excellent internal reflection or glare control and the best CA control of the three or perhaps any binocular the Zeiss FL is your binocular. You have to decide what you want.
 
Last edited:
SF has exactly the same number of lenses as FL10x32 i.e. 11. See drg below. Don't forget the field flattener has two lenses.

Lee

Hey Lee,

Just to keep the record straight that diagram incorrectly suggests there are two lenses when really there is only one. The straight line at the top of the field flattener actually represents the uncut back side of the lens rather than another element. You can see the same treatment of every other concave surface represented in the diagram.

The photo of an actual SF below makes it clearer that the field flattener is a singlet.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • Doorsnede ocular Zeiss SF gecomprimeerd-1.jpg
    Doorsnede ocular Zeiss SF gecomprimeerd-1.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 67
Hey Lee,

Just to keep the record straight that diagram incorrectly suggests there are two lenses when really there is only one. The straight line at the top of the field flattener actually represents the uncut back side of the lens rather than another element. You can see the same treatment of every other concave surface represented in the diagram.

The photo of an actual SF below makes it clearer that the field flattener is a singlet.

Henry

Hi Henry and thank you for spotting this and pointing it out. Apologies to Dennis too.

Lee
 
Optical engineers with the advent of computers can now make design revisions in a fraction of the time. New coatings have also improved optical performance. I would not want to make a decision on current binoculars based on ones manufacturer 3 or more years ago. The Swarovski Companion models have been improved of late and their performance improved.

For me it comes down to holding the binoculars in my hands and looking through them with my eyes under various lighting conditions and deciding which one I like the best. Technical specifications have been of little or no use in my own decision process. I try to buy from B&H as they make the RMA process incredibly easy should I decide having received a binocular that I do not like it for any reason.
 
Optical engineers with the advent of computers can now make design revisions in a fraction of the time. New coatings have also improved optical performance. I would not want to make a decision on current binoculars based on ones manufacturer 3 or more years ago. The Swarovski Companion models have been improved of late and their performance improved...

It's easier to revise designs than to implement those revisions in the manufacturing process. Although small changes in coatings are sometimes made, their effect on performance is trivial compared to changes in the lenses, and it doesn't seem that such substantive changes happen very often (if ever) over the very long model lifetimes (usually at least 10 years) of most premium quality binoculars. So I can't imagine that examination 3+ year old units wouldn't be valid for deciding among competing models. I have bins of current models that were made 15+ years ago that are not substantively optically different than current production of the same model. The current Swarovski Companion x30 models are the same as the old models in name only. They are a complete optical re-design, not a tweak of the old ones.

--AP
 
Is there such a difference between the 8x32FL model and its 10x3FL brother in terms of optics, image quality? on the outside it looks the same ..
Greetings,
Wachi.
 
Is there such a difference between the 8x32FL model and its 10x32FL brother in terms of optics, image quality? on the outside it looks the same ..
Greetings,
Wachi.

To me, the only difference was the fact that I was unable to keep that 10x steady enough. Both 8x and 10x had superb images as far as I was concerned. So not sure where you get the notion of a big difference? I had them simultaneously for several days of comparison. The difference observed was just due to the different magnifications. 10x provides more details, as long as the view is sufficiently steady.
 
I read the following not long ago regarding my question: " there is a big difference between the similar looking FL 8x32 and FL 10x32. And between the FL 10x32 and all other Zeiss binoculars. The FL 10x32 is by far the best with regard to wideness of the field and sharpness to the edge.
Regards,
Wachi.
 
I read the following not long ago regarding my question: " there is a big difference between the similar looking FL 8x32 and FL 10x32. And between the FL 10x32 and all other Zeiss binoculars. The FL 10x32 is by far the best with regard to wideness of the field and sharpness to the edge.
Regards,
Wachi.

I have been unable to find this quote. However, the one difference that has been discussed extensively is the fact that the 10x model has an additional lens that serves as a field flattener. Thus, the edge sharpness ought to be improved. Personally, this was not obvious as far as I'm concerned, and the Zeiss model did not show the - to me - irritating roller ball effect when scanning. This in contrast to the Swarovski models I had compared both Zeiss with. Regarding the wideness of the field, the Zeiss 10x32 does not shine particularly. So I wonder whether you got the SF model mixed in, as there, the wideness of the field is exceptional. But we are then talking about x42 models.
 
I found this comment in another forum, in Cloudynights. But I imagine that everyone sees it in their own way, in short, personal opinions.
Wachi
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top